News3 mins ago
Bye Bye Britain....
210 Answers
An absolute disgrace
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-113006 6/They-say-old-care-grandchildren-Social-worke rs-hand-brother-sister-gay-men-adoption.html
- and it's not just the Mail, it's being widely reported on BBC and LBC
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-113006 6/They-say-old-care-grandchildren-Social-worke rs-hand-brother-sister-gay-men-adoption.html
- and it's not just the Mail, it's being widely reported on BBC and LBC
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by flobbergob. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
R1Geezer
Nope..still doesn't work out, because you're ignoring the laws of determination and probability.
This is how it would work - if you have 100 couples, each of which produced 2 children each, that would be 200 kids.
Now say that out of those 200, 14 were gay, you would still have 186 straight people who would (for the sake of simplicity) have two kids each. That would be 372 kids, of which (say) another 26 (approx 7%) would be gay. That would be a total of 40.
As each generation of straight couples produce offspring, the number of gay children would grow. There is no mechanism for repairing the 'faulty' genetic code.
Oh, and guess what? There are no figures to support the asertion that a gay man or woman who produces a child has any more change of having a gay kid than a straight man or woman.
Nope..still doesn't work out, because you're ignoring the laws of determination and probability.
This is how it would work - if you have 100 couples, each of which produced 2 children each, that would be 200 kids.
Now say that out of those 200, 14 were gay, you would still have 186 straight people who would (for the sake of simplicity) have two kids each. That would be 372 kids, of which (say) another 26 (approx 7%) would be gay. That would be a total of 40.
As each generation of straight couples produce offspring, the number of gay children would grow. There is no mechanism for repairing the 'faulty' genetic code.
Oh, and guess what? There are no figures to support the asertion that a gay man or woman who produces a child has any more change of having a gay kid than a straight man or woman.
flobbergob
If you believe something based on limited or no knowledge of a person, then it's homophobia/prejudice.
None of us know a jot about the gay couple. Your opinion is based solely on the fact that they're gay.
We don't know if they are in a sexual relationship. You don't know whether they are swingers, or boring librarian who wear tweed jackets.
We don't know their class, income, politics etc.
So it becomes prejudice when you judge someone based on one aspect of their existance, without recourse to knowing anything else about them.
Prejudice isn't necessarily a bad thing - we all prejudge people. But it becomes dangerous when you use prejudice to treat someone as 'less than' for no real reason.
If you believe something based on limited or no knowledge of a person, then it's homophobia/prejudice.
None of us know a jot about the gay couple. Your opinion is based solely on the fact that they're gay.
We don't know if they are in a sexual relationship. You don't know whether they are swingers, or boring librarian who wear tweed jackets.
We don't know their class, income, politics etc.
So it becomes prejudice when you judge someone based on one aspect of their existance, without recourse to knowing anything else about them.
Prejudice isn't necessarily a bad thing - we all prejudge people. But it becomes dangerous when you use prejudice to treat someone as 'less than' for no real reason.
The Sherman
First you say I am entitled to my own opinion, and then you state "then I'm afraid your opinion should not have a voice! Why should your views count"?
There are lots of things that cause me no harm, but I have every right to voice my opinion on them, also my views should count even if some don't agree with them, this is what debating is all about in a free country.
What I do disagree with is the fact that some demand that you should find nothing wrong with their life style, and that you are somewhat bigoted if you do not agree with them.
If this was the case there are many on this site that I could hang this label on.
First you say I am entitled to my own opinion, and then you state "then I'm afraid your opinion should not have a voice! Why should your views count"?
There are lots of things that cause me no harm, but I have every right to voice my opinion on them, also my views should count even if some don't agree with them, this is what debating is all about in a free country.
What I do disagree with is the fact that some demand that you should find nothing wrong with their life style, and that you are somewhat bigoted if you do not agree with them.
If this was the case there are many on this site that I could hang this label on.
GAY couples CAn and often ARE good parents. I have friends who have been in gay relationship for 13 years. Together they have raised "their" daughter (one of the women had a child during a previously heterosexual relationship). The daughter is NOW a well adjusted 19 year old who loves her biological mum and her mums partner of 13 years....but....on a negative...she has recently admitted that her teenage years were fraut with teasing by her peers....and this made her very unhappy at the time. :-(
so alls well that ends well but it was tough in the in between years for the daughter.
so alls well that ends well but it was tough in the in between years for the daughter.
Thanks for the lecture sp, but I have made my mind up about many aspects of human life and society, and that includes homosexuality. My opinion is based on what I know about it (cue for you to say "not enough" and for me to respond "quite enough thanks")
I disapprove, simple. I strongly disapprove of placing small vulnerable children within a homosexual couple, I do not need to know all the facts of the case, it is a matter of morality and principle. They may be the sweetest two men you could hope to meet - but not to "parent" a child.
I disapprove, simple. I strongly disapprove of placing small vulnerable children within a homosexual couple, I do not need to know all the facts of the case, it is a matter of morality and principle. They may be the sweetest two men you could hope to meet - but not to "parent" a child.
-- answer removed --
R1Geezer
Yes. I see your point.
So if there are 400,000 gay men and women in the UK today, there will be roughly the same amount in 100 years.
And if there really is a genetic code (and this hasn't actually been proven yet - it's currently popular to assume that people are 'born gay'), the code will always exist.
Yes. I see your point.
So if there are 400,000 gay men and women in the UK today, there will be roughly the same amount in 100 years.
And if there really is a genetic code (and this hasn't actually been proven yet - it's currently popular to assume that people are 'born gay'), the code will always exist.
-- answer removed --
